Tag Archives: Parkland

I have spent the past ten and a half months trying to confirm or deny one little report.

On February 16, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported on an investigation conducted by Florida DCF of the scumbag who would become the Parkland murdering a$$h0le. Basically, it was just another case of the “authorities” blowing off another chance to do something about him before anyone died.

But eleven paragraphs in, I noticed something.

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

As I’ve written before, “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a specific legal status in Florida. It is based on a finding by a judge in a formal hearing in which the subject has the opportunity to appear with legal counsel. In short, a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” is a prohibited person under the criteria of 18 U.S. Code § 922(d)(4). Chumbucket should not have been able to pass a background check to buy his rifle.

To be fair, the reporters might’ve misunderstood what DCF told them. So I contacted the Sun-Sentinel to verify that part was correct. I never received a response.

Since then, in an effort to discover if that “vulnerable adult” claim was accurate, I’ve contacted Florida DCF, state legislators, Senator Grassley (when he held a hearing on the shooting), the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school public safety commission, and the world. I have received no answers either way. From anyone. Until today.

A couple of days ago, the Sun-Sentinel’s Randy Schultz wrote an op/ed. He took the position that even if their sheriff is a complete screw-up (which he is), we still need more gun control.

If chum was a prohibited person, then gun control didn’t work. Maybe we should fix what we have before piling on more. I wrote to Schultz to suggest he look into that “vulnerable adult” issue, because I’d had zero luck myself.

Schultz replied. I’ll give him that much. In fact we had quite the email exchange.

Based on published reports, the Florida Department of Children and Families investigated and determined that Cruz was not a danger to himself. It ended there.

No. The results of that investigation had no bearing on chum’s prohibited status. They investigated because he was already a prohibited person “vulnerable adult,” according to the Sun-Sentinel. Which I told Schultz.

If you mean prohibited from buying a firearm, the conditions are that a person must have been committed or adjudicated,

Yes, and if bucket-head really was a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness” that’s exactly what he went through to achieve that status. That’s why I want to know if he is: that status is achieved through adjudication of mental incompetence under Florida law.

But neither applied to Cruz.

-blink-

I gave him the Sun-Sentinel story with the original claim, and Florida and federal law cites to show that yes, it did

Correct. But the state made no no finding that he was a threat to himself.

He’s back to claiming that the investigation wouldn’t have made him a prohibited person because it cleared him. I reiterated that the investigation wasn’t done to determine if DCF should petition a judge for “vulnerable adult” staus for the a$$h0le. They were in a position to investigate him because he already was, according to the Sun-Sentinel.

You’ll have to ask the editors. I’m a freelancer.

See above: Been there, done that. They aren’t talking.

“Freelance” this: Was Cruz a prohibited person, as reported by the Sun-Sentinel, or not?

Being a reporter in the area, it should be easy enough for Schultz to check. If he was, the court record should be available. Even if sealed, that the record exists should be public. Heck, he could just talk to the original reporters and ask them to check their notes to see if that was a direct quote from DCF.

Personally, I originally thought the story simply mischaracterized Cruz’s status; reporters make mistakes. Or maybe it was correct, and I’d noticed just another governmental failure. No big deal. Except for all the dead people. I’m used to bureaucratic cock-ups.

After months of deafening silence, I’m beginning to wonder if there’s more to it.

Was Cruz a “vulnerable adult due to mental illness,” or did DCF make a series of truly amazing errors (having an adult under supervision without a judge’s ruling, making a very specific claim of that status mistakenly)?

If Cruz was a vulnerable adult, why wasn’t he reported to NICS? If he wasn’t a vulnerable adult, why does DCF have a report of an evaluation conducted of him as an adult?

If some DCF employee simply misread something, and Cruz was not classified as a vulnerable adult, why doesn’t DCF simply make the correction?

If the murderous slime was not a prohibited person, then folks like me can’t say NICS failed. Gun controllers could use that to rationalize more laws to catch folks not otherwise caught. If he was prohibited, then laws failed, and gun controllers don’t want to admit the system is at fault.

Why the silence? If he wasn’t prohibited, then that supports their gun control agenda. They could say so.

That they won’t say at all suggests to me that he was prohibited, but they can’t risk lying about it and getting caught.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

As a child growing up, most of the TV shows tended to portray law enforcement as heroes. They always got there in the nick of time, and if they were called in after the unfortunate event happened? They always knew what to do about that as well. They could do a dandy chalk outline of the corpse and then find out who made that happen to the unfortunate victim. And the really superior thing about law-enforcement back then is they could always make it happen in an hour. Minus the time for commercials of course. That’s not like the modern day shows that have running story lines. Like soap operas did when I was growing up. This is back before the day of “Cops as the bad guys”. Oh of course there have always been bad cops, it’s just they weren’t really so much a part of the TV land experience back then. We were taught to respect them, and if we were in trouble, look for a cop. TV shows where the guys stealing cars were the good guys didn’t happen. Nor was there near the amount of realism that you see in shows today.

Hospitals probably weren’t target rich environments back then, aka “gun-free zones”. But to be honest, I doubt that many people carried while at work either. It’s just that now the signs make it clear unless the crew of “Third Watch” happens to be in the ER waiting room they can pretty much be assured everyone will be doing what the medical staff was doing. Ducking, hiding, running, praying. Because throwing chairs, rocks and baseball bats don’t look to be a viable option to me there. No one is going to be firing back at them.

So if the crew of “Third Watch” happens to be in the ER waiting room, and 1-Adam12 has been dispatched to assist in response to Cruz’s call in for back up, how long will it take for Malloy and Reed to arrive on the scene?

“I would just call 911 for help.” There’s this false sense of security that we have created with the 911 system that has people believing that with a single call, a swat team will be dispatched immediately to save you and your family within moments of the call.

Unfortunately, this couldn’t be further from the truth. So what is the average-police-response-time to a 911 call?

According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.

The Department of Justice, with their statistical prowess, reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour. Interpretation? If you live in an upper income area you probably are privy to the 4 minute response time, while middle to rural areas will see a much longer response time.

Now here is where things get interesting. Even though the Department of Justice determined that the average police response time to a 911 call is 4 minutes, the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds.

That translates to you being robbed/injured/maimed/raped/murdered and waiting for an additional 2 and a half minutes for the police to arrive. The truth of the matter is that the police will almost always arrive AFTER the crime has happened and the criminal has gone.

In rural areas the time can be even longer. A lot longer. Think 30 minutes, maybe more. It’s not that they are hanging out at donut shops, or trying to get someone at Taco Smell to take their order, there is a lot that goes into 9-1-1 calls, and a lot of calls can go into 9-1-1. The lady with the cat in the tree may have got a call in seconds before you were calling in about the guy fixin to come in through your back door.

There are four possible ways to mitigate the damage inflicted by an active shooter. You can harden the target, arm and train potential victims, strengthen prevention programs and suspect identification, and improve law enforcement response times. Each one of these steps is easier said than done because of the associated bureaucratic, political, and budgetary considerations.

Department of Homeland Security research reveals that the average duration of an active shooter incident at a school is 12.5 minutes. In contrast, the average response time for law enforcement is 18 minutes. That means it only makes sense for us to find ways to improve our response times. Working on our response times is about the only anti-active shooter measure that we can take at the operator level. We must find a way to shave off some time and in doing so, create some type of tactical advantage.

A little discouraging that political weighs into the mix making it harder. But when you consider two Buckets O’Chum in Florida were part of Barry’s social engineering project where by kids got a pass on criminal behavior to make statistics look better and law-enforcement agencies got money in return, I guess it’s the truth. Both of them had criminal actions in their backgrounds. Were they in jail? Juvenile court? Detention? Nope.

But you know what the bottom line on all of this is? They don’t gotta. What do I mean? They police do not have a duty to protect you, yours, your kith or your kin. Or Barbie either for that matter. I know, I know that’s what it says on the side of the Police cars, “To Serve and Protect”. Look, everyone needs a goal, a mission statement if you will. So think of it like that, it’s a goal, it’s their mission. Mine is to lose 7 pounds. They have equal chances of succeeding. They can’t be everywhere at once and fried okra still exists in the world.

This has become an issue again the wake of the actions of the law enforcement of Coward County Florida. Scot Petersen, not the Scott Peterson who murdered his pregnant wife, he’s still on death row, but the deputy who cowered outside as a Bucket O’Chum shot students in a Parkland school after security monitor Andrew Medina failed to confront O’Chum when he saw him or call a “Code Red” in the school. So, because Parkland is a safe gun-free zone and had the crack Coward law-enforcement on hand you have a massive #GunControlFail.

A judge has rejected a deputy’s claim that he had no duty to confront the gunman during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Refusing to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parent of a victim, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning found after a hearing Wednesday that ex-deputy Scot Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school where 17 people died and 17 were wounded on Feb. 14. Video and other evidence shows Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, remained outside while shots rang out.

The negligence lawsuit was filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed. He said it made no sense for Peterson’s attorneys to argue that a sworn law enforcement officer with a badge and a gun had no requirement to go inside.

“Then what is he doing there?” Pollack said after the ruling. “He had a duty. I’m not going to let this go. My daughter, her death is not going to be in vain.”

Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.

“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.

“As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.

Police are not the only ones shielded from the consequences of the failure to protect. Another truly horrific case is that of DeShaney v. Winnebago County. That was a spectacular failure of a ‘child protection team,’ consisting of a pediatrician, a psychologist, a police detective, the county’s lawyer, several DSS caseworkers, and various hospital personnel, and the juvenile court. They returned a badly abused child to his custodial father. The father did not meet the requirements in the following year and the child protective services did______________nada, zip, zilch, zero, squat. Eventually the poor little four year old boy was beaten so badly he wound up in a institution for the rest of his life. His dad served less than 2 years in jail. And the child protection team? The department of social services that did nothing on their follow up visits? Nothing, nothing happened to any of them when the child’s mother attempted to sue. I’m thinking the court that awarded custody to the dad should be included in the list of shame there as well.

And what say the anti-gun, anti-self defense pink hatted faux feminists? Don’t get a gun, just go through the legal system. Get a restraining order and then sic the cops on him. And Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales will show you that works as well as the law enforcement team of Coward County. That resulted in 3 dead little girls at the hand of their loving father. The mother had begged police to go find the girls. Her ex walked right through the paper target.

This reality does belie the often-made claim, however, that police agencies deserve the tax money and obedience of local citizens because the agencies “keep us safe.”

Nevertheless, we are told there is an agreement here — a “social contract” — between government agencies and the taxpayers and citizens.

And, by the very nature of being a contract, we are meant to believe this is a two-way street. The taxpayers are required to submit to a government monopoly on force, and to pay these agencies taxes.

In return, these government agents will provide services. In the case of police agencies, these services are summed up by the phrase “to protect and serve” — a motto that has in recent decades been adopted by numerous police agencies.

But what happens when those police agencies don’t protect and serve? That is, what happens when one party in this alleged social contract doesn’t keep up its end of the bargain.

The answer is: very little.

The Mises Institute also makes another excellent point.

The taxpayers will still have to pay their taxes and submit to police agencies as lawful authority. If the agencies or individual agents are forced to pay as a result of lawsuits, it’s the taxpayers who will pay for that too.

Oh sure, the senior leadership positions may change, but the enormous agency budgets will remain, the government agents themselves will continue to collect generous salaries and pensions, and no government will surrender its monopoly on the use of force.

No government will surrender it’s monopoly on power? Well what I ask, could go wrong with that??

“Guns would have served as a vital pillar to remaining a free people, or at least able to put up a fight,” Javier Vanegas, 28, a Venezuelan teacher of English now exiled in Ecuador, told Fox News. “The government security forces, at the beginning of this debacle, knew they had no real opposition to their force. Once things were this bad, it was a clear declaration of war against an unarmed population.”

Under the direction of then-President Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan National Assembly in 2012 enacted the “Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law,” with the explicit aim to “disarm all citizens.” The law took effect in 2013, with only minimal pushback from some pro-democracy opposition figures, banned the legal commercial sale of guns and munitions to all – except government entities.

Florida voters: Here’s a question you should be asking before casting a vote.

All the way back on February 16, 2018, the Sun-Sentinel reported that the Parkland murdering scumbag was “classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness” by Florida DCF. I noted then that that is not just bureaucratese; it is a specific legal status in Florida requiring a ruling by a judge in a hearing.

Which would make the killer a prohibited person — unable to lawfully pass a background check, or obtain a firearm. Yet… somehow he did.

Did DCF misstate the case, and meant he was in their records from his time as a minor? Or was the statement accurate? (But they did investigate him as an adult…)

In the latter event, why wasn’t the scumsucker reported to NICS, which might’ve saved several lives?

Heck, I asked every Florida state rep and senator for whom I could get email addresses. All I got was being added to a bunch of campaign mailing lists (masquerading as “keeping my constituents informed of my greatness”). No answers, about the shooter’s legal status.

Senator Grassley held a hearing on the Parkland shooting. So I asked him. You got it: -crickets- (I don’t count the long, rambling form letter that never addressed my question).

I think Florida voters should demand an answer right now, to know if someone in their government — who might be up for reelection — screwed up and let people die.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

According to my various newsfeeds, students across the country plan to skip school again today to shamelessly dance in 19 year-old Columbine blood to demand more gun control. After all, it’s been nearly twenty years and we still haven’t stopped school shootings.

Let’s look at what they want:

Raise firearms purchase age limit to 21.
The Columbine shooters obtained their firearms unlawfully, through a combination of straw purchases and illegal sales to 17yos.

They broke age limit laws.

“Assault weapon ban.
The Columbine shooters only had one “assault weapon” (TEC-9; illegally obtained: see above) and that was smack in the middle of the 1994-2004 federal “assault weapon ban.

“High capacity” magazine ban.
The Columbine shooters used a carbine with 10-round magazines, a pump-action shotgun (illegally sawed-off), a double-barrel shotgun (illegally sawed-off, and just try to jam a magazine in there), and — yes — a TEC-9 (see above) with likewise banned “high capacity” magazines

And another one doesn’t work.

Bump-fire stock ban.
Well, commercial bump-fire stocks didn’t exist yet. But they weren’t used in Parkland either. In fact, we don’t really know of any crime committed with a “bump stock;” the recent “bump-stock-type device” proposed rule claims that the Mandalay Bay chumbucket used them, but…

Search for it: find a single instance where anyone connected to the investigation said they were used. The GAO, in a recent report, carefully noted that bump stocked rifles were found, but did not say they were used. The FOIA bump stock/Mandalay Bay ATF data dump redacted anything that indicated which guns were used and which were not. More than six months, and they won’t say what was used, even as “bump stocks were used” is the rallying cry for idiots wanting them banned by law and rule.

The shooters were prohibited persons (a judge ordered them into mental health treatment). That law didn’t stop them either.

But some other things certainly haven’t changed since Columbine.

The shooters, just a few months before the shooting, produced a school project video… in which they acted out killing fellow students in the halls of their school.

The shooters were known to the police, both for prior criminal arrests, and from an investigation of videos they’d posted in which they tested the illegal bombs they manufactured. The type of bombs they planted in the school. The police declined to apply for warrants, and dropped the matter.

Continuing with the theme of cops not doing their jobs, the police did not enter the school until the shooters had finished the job (on themselves). Although a couple of officers did engage the shooters outside, which is more than Coward County’s Finest would do.

The laws these ill-informed children are demanding already failed to stop mass shootings, even as they succeeded in violating the rights of tens of millions of people who didn’t do it.

Reality is not their forte. None have — or can — explained why the laws would work this time on people bent on evading those laws. Nor have they explained how laws against an unknown number — but definitely in the millions — of guns in unknown hands in unknown locations would be enforced, let alone deal with malicious “compliance”.

How many of these wanna-be future leaders are volunteering to lead confiscation raid teams because the targets are well-armed?

Maybe they’ll require gun owners to carry their illicit arms in clear plastic backpacks to make them easily detected, so the violators can be summarily hanged at their convenience.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.

The hell with transparent backpacks. I want to see high school girls forced to wear transparent bras and blouses so they can’t hide weapons.

Not really, of course. But apparently it is going to take more than backpacks for these little immature whiners to see the irony of demanding firearms bans on honest folks with the inevitable “transparency” of searches to force compliance. It’s just “common since.”

Then let’s give them some incentive to do the job they’re being paid by taxpayers to claim they do.

This can be done with federal law enforcement easily enough. Any Congress that can pass Obamacare can easily pass a law to

Make the pay rate for all personnel with law enforcement powers equal to the federal minimum wage. Across the board. Every single one. At any level, supervision or management.

Include a clause that any union contract specifying otherwise is null and void upon expiration, and must be renegotiated (you can keep your pay if you like your pay; heh) to meet US Code requirements. No contract extensions not compliant with the standards.

No minimum wage LEO may carry a firearm. Ever. Aren’t they citizens, people, just like the disarmed rest of us?

Those LEOs who wish to carry a firearm only on duty shall qualify on each and every type of firearm they might carry on duty, and requalify semiannually. Firearms-qualified and equipped LEOs will earn a 15% bonus.

Statistically, law enforcement doesn’t make the top ten list of most dangerous jobs. Some list, it doesn’t make the top twenty. Why should their base pay be higher than a roofer?

Any unarmed LEO who goes into harm’s way (as anti-exemplified by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office) to protect a citizen(s) earns a cash bonus for that action. If needed, full medical coverage for any injuries, appropriate death benefits, and 100% college scholarships for any children.

Any armed LEO who goes into harm’s way earns a lesser cash bonus for that action. If needed, full medical coverage for any injuries and appropriate death benefits.

Any armed LEO who fails to go into harm’s way to protect a citizen(s) will lose all armed-officer pay and bonuses perpetually. This does not mean he must search out such incidents, but merely respond appropriately when one does occur in which he could have acted.

Disputes arising from whether a LEO’s behavior met the above standards or not will be settled by a board of arbitrators consisting of non-LEO civilians, but advised in a non-binding fashion by a person(s) will law enforcement experience but no conflict of interest in any particular case at hand. The board shall have the power to award additional bonuses (beyond those specified above) should they determine the LEO’s behavior was especially exemplary.

By judicial decree, cops don’t have any responsibility to protect individuals; they “protect” society simply being there. So do minimum wage unarmed security guards. This proposal does not attempt to change that lack of requirement; it incentivizes the behavior we expect of good cops. LEOs who can’t deal with this probably shouldn’t be LEOs. They hire on with Securitas (and arrange their own unofficial bonuses) or flip burgers.

Or roof houses.

Naturally, this federal law wouldn’t apply to state/local officers. It would be up to locals to decide if they want something similar for their tax dollars. But federal grants, equipment, and civil asset forfeiture (pessimistically, I don’t expect that to go away, even if this proposal passed) sharing would be dependent upon local compliance with these guidelines.

Let the folks doing mundane, boring, unexceptional work be paid as such.

Let the heroes be rewarded as such.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

The Parkland high school mass murderer appears to have been a prohibited person, unable to lawfully purchase firearms, who was never reported to NICS.

Sound familiar?

Yes, I know; you’re enjoying your dance in the blood of the Parkland innocents. This looks like the perfect time to call for more restrictions on rights because people are upset. You think this one proves people can’t be trusted, and more laws will fix everything.

After all, who really needs a gun when the government is there to protect you, eh?

So let’s look at all the legal loopholes that need plugging; the ones you pretend allowed the Parkland horror to happen. Let’s see how well government protected those students and faculty.

Asshole T. Chumbucket (what; you thought I’d give him the notoriety he wanted by naming the SOB?) had quite the history according media reports.

He had been suspended from school multiple times for violence, acts of destruction, and weapons violations; incidents going back at least as far as the seventh grade. He was apparently never arrested.

Law enforcement was called to his home 39 times in seven years, for threats, harassment, vandalism, and window-peeping. He was apparently never arrested.

He was expelled from school for another act of violence. He was apparently never arrested.

Offhand, I’d say the first few dozen failures here were not “weak” gun laws. I’m looking at law enforcement and the school system. That probably explains why both the sheriff and school superintendent are trying to deflect attention by screaming for… Yeah, more gun control laws.

“Mr. Cruz has fresh cuts on both his arms. Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun. It is unknown what he is buying the gun for,” the DCF report reads.

But that didn’t really raise any red flags. Of course not. Why worry about a violent and self destructive guy getting a gun?

[The shooter’s mother] said her son did not have a firearm. She said she had confiscated his air gun because he didn’t follow house rules about only shooting it “within the backyard and at targets.”

And the little fact that his mother didn’t even trust him with an airgunstill didn’t raise eyebrows.

Apparently DCF joins the line of government agencies getting paid to protect and declining to bother. Maybe Florida taxpayers should skip paying and just burn the government’s “share” for heat; less administrative overhead, and they’d get something for it.

But here’s where things get interesting. The investigation by DCF came after chumboy turned eighteen, after he became a legal adult, after he normally wouldn’t be under their jurisdiction. Why?

Cruz came under DCF’s supervision and care because he was classified as a vulnerable adult due to mental illness.

How does one go about getting “classified” as a “vulnerable adult” in Florida? Does some concerned citizen merely call DCF, who immediately declares him such?

If the department has reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult or a vulnerable adult in need of services is being abused, neglected, or exploited and is in need of protective services but lacks the capacity to consent to protective services, the department shall petition the court for an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Petition the court? And how does that work?

1. The court shall set the case for hearing within 14 days after the filing of the petition. The vulnerable adult and any person given notice of the filing of the petition have the right to be present at the hearing. The department must make reasonable efforts to ensure the presence of the vulnerable adult at the hearing.

2. The vulnerable adult has the right to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. The court shall appoint legal counsel to represent a vulnerable adult who is without legal representation.

A hearing before a judge, with advance notice, and legal representation. Remember those; it’s important.

(d) Hearing findings.–If at the hearing the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the vulnerable adult is in need of protective services and lacks the capacity to consent, the court may issue an order authorizing the provision of protective services.

Apparently a judge adjudicated the asshole to be mentally incompetent due to mental illness. TZP members saw where this was going some paragraphs back. I’ll explain for similarly mentally incompetent media types and other victim disarmers.

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
[…]
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution

So A. Fishbait was a prohibited person, unable to lawfully possess a firearm. To be a client of DCF he had to be to be mentally deficient.

The NIAA was enacted in the wake of the April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms from an FFL because information about his prohibiting mental health history was not available to the NICS, and the system was therefore unable to deny the transfer of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA seeks to address the gap in information available to NICS about such prohibiting mental health adjudications and commitments and other prohibiting backgrounds. Filling these information gaps will better enable the system to operate as intended, to keep guns out of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or state law from receiving or possessing firearms.

In case you media and other rights violators have forgotten, another bucket of chum was able to kill 32 people and wound 17 more (at a school) because Virginia authorities neglected to report him. NIAA fixed that “loophole” that let governments screw up.

We need the schools, cops, DCF, and whoever the heck was responsible for reporting to do the freaking jobs they’re sucking taxpayer money to currently not do.

Let’s close the government “I’m too lazy to bother” loophole. Then the FBI’s “What? Multiple credible reports of a named threat? I’m too busy going to Starbucks” loophole — which likewise needs to be closed by closing the FBI — wouldn’t have mattered either.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money.

Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!